Ferris v. Von Mannagetta

• Decision Date: 01 February 1938
• Citation: 198 A. 167,124 Conn. 88
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FERRIS v. VON MANNAGETTA.

198 A. 167

124 Conn. 88

FERRIS v. VON MANNAGETTA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 1, 1938

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1938.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Action by Joseph Ferris against Cecele Von Mannagetta to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence in driving an automobile. The case was tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Error and judgment directed for defendants.

JENNINGS, J., dissenting.

Frank S. Bergin, of New Haven, for appellant.

Joseph Koletsky, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

This case, as it comes to us, is one in which the defendant, Mrs Von Mannagetta, to whom we shall hereafter refer as the defendant, is appealing from a judgment rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff for injuries he suffered when the car which she was driving came into collision with a truck. The plaintiff was riding as a guest in the car, and the accident occurred before the so-called Guest Statute, General Statutes, § 1628, was repealed. It was therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff, if he was to recover, to prove that the defendant in the operation of the car was guilty of conduct which ‘ evinced a reckless indifference to the danger of injury to others.’ Sadinsky v. Coughlin, 114 Conn. 585, 589, 159 A. 492; Riordan v. Gouin, 119 Conn. 235, 238, 175 A. 686.

The facts, as stated in the finding, with such material corrections as should be made in it, are as follows: The plaintiff and defendant left New Haven some time after 10:25 p. m. on March 26, 1936, and the defendant drove the car westerly along the main highway toward Milford. She operated the car at a reasonable speed and there was no occasion for the plaintiff to comment on her driving. They came to a point where the highway divides, one branch running to Milford and the other, curving very gradually to the north, running toward Bridgeport, the latter highway being known as the cut-off. Both highways were of concrete, the former 36 feet and the latter 40 feet wide, each with four traffic lanes. When the car was about 25 feet from the intersection, well on its right side of the highway, and proceeding at a speed of about 35 miles an hour, the defendant saw the lights of an approaching truck, which was proceeding in the opposite direction and was some 250 feet westerly of the intersection. The defendant first drove her car into the beginning of the intersection, still keeping to the right side of the highway where they intersect; she then changed her course to the left, on to the highway running to Milford as if to continue to that town; then she again changed her course, coming back into the cut-off. Meanwhile the driver of the truck, observing her course, put on his brakes and turned the truck slightly to the left. The car collided with the truck when it was in the second traffic lane from its right side of the highway. The distance covered by the car from the time the defendant turned toward Milford until the accident was about 250 feet. The defendant continued to drive her car at about the same speed of 35 miles an hour until the moment of the collision; she did not apply her brakes until just before the accident, when the plaintiff exclaimed, ‘ For Heaven's sake put on the brakes!’ she gave no signals as to...